Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Many claim it is premature to call for the prosecution of Officer Darren Wilson. Baring information that Officer Wilson had reason to believe Mr. Brown was armed, I disagree. Officer Wilson shot an unarmed man, at what appears from witnesses and forensics to have been some range, at least six times. One of those times the bullet entered the top of the head and exited through an eye. Unless, brown was charging on all fours like a bull, it is hard to understand how Mr. Brown was threatening Officer Wilson at that moment. That appears to have been the fatal shot. It could be Officer Wilson will be acquitted if tried, but I believe there is enough evidence to indict him. Let's compare this to what happened to George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Marting shooting. Trayvon Martin was clearly unarmed, except for skittles. Zimmerman claimed Mr. Martin was on top of him pounding his head into a concrete sidewalk. If that was true, Mr Zimmerman clearly had a case of self defense. Zimmerman shot Martin only once. There were no witnesses who contradicted the claim Zimmerman acted in anything but self defense. The forensics supported Zimmerman's story, but he was indicted anyway and tried for murder anyway. Now let's move to the death in Ferguson. Mr. Brown was not armed unless you think cigars are a weapon. Mr. Brown was not assaulting Officer Wilson at the time of the shooting, although he could have been moving toward him and may have punched him earlier. Officer Wilson shot Mr. Brown at least six times and may have shot at him more times than that. At least four witnesses contradict Officer Wilson's story. So far, no witness has been named that supports Officer Wilson. An anonymous background voice on a bystander tape isn't a credible source, unless he comes forward. Of course, there could be witnesses we don't know about yet. The fact that Mr. Wilson is an officer doesn't give him a pass to gun down unarmed citizens in the street just because he feels threatened. He shouldn't be held to a much lower standard than George Zimmerman. He should be held to a higher standard if Police Officers are to maintain the moral authority needed to enforce the law with the backing of the state. Officer Wilson has had much more training and a likely had an arsenal of nonlethal weapons and tactics to deal with Mr. Brown instead of emptying a clip on him. Perhaps that shooting was justified, but a jury should decide.

4 comments:

Mister J.
said...

All officers in the US are trained to use the force they deem necessary at the moment an event is happening. They are trained to react to the threat of violence against them or others, not the actual violent act itself. (IE: An officer does not have to wait for a suspect to actually point a gun at him before he uses deadly force against the suspect.) Officers are judged based on what they knew at the time of the incident and their actions are scrutinized by the courts using the factors contained in Graham Vs Conner, a 1989 use of force case decided by the Supreme Court. An officer's use of force is viewed from the court's perspective of Objective Reasonableness. (What would a similar officer with similar experience do in the same situation with what the officer knew at the time he made the decision to use force.) The court weighs the officer's use of force decisions on what is called Graham Factors. The four main Graham Factors are: 1) The severity of the crime the person committed; 2) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others and the seriousness of the threat; 3) Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest; 4) Whether the suspect is attempting to evade arrest by flight. There are a whole bunch of other factors the court can consider as well that pertain to the situation and that comprise the Totality of Circumstances.

Incidentally, I am a Use of Force instructor, and I would be happy to explain why everything factual known so far about this shooting points to the officer's use of force as being reasonable if you would care to listen. Aside from that, for the governor to come out and say the officer should be "vigorously prosecuted" before the facts are all clearly established or known is not only recklessly presumptive and unethical, but very probably further endangers the officer in question by pandering to the ongoing mob mentality for "appeasement" purposes. That Sir, is patently wrong.

You seem to think that the the police can do anything they think necessary if they feel threatened.If that is true, you are training them to wear the wrong uniform in the wrong country. It's definitely a lower standard than George Zimmerman was held too. No wonder many citizens have come to the opinion the police are no longer here to protect and serve. I think opinion and law is about to change. When police behavior becomes so outrageous conservatives like me can't support them, it's over.